Social Media


Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14375

  • JerryW
  • OFFLINE
  • Endurance Racer
  • If you feel in control you arent going fast enough
  • Posts: 659
Thanks - Would be great to see
Jerry Whitteridge
Norcal #552

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14384

IT'S ABOUT TIME! We love this rule and think it was a long time coming! Excellent Eric! Chasing hp #'s was getting out of hand. Our 2 cars are at 132 and 128 with about 4 years on them. We don't race enough to rebuild every year but the hp#'s in the 140's + were apparent at Cal Speedway for sure. Sure you can have great drivers beat you but give a great driver a 10+ hp advantage and we were fighting machine guns with pea shooters.

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14385

Also remember we have new tires now which are supposed to be better, + all that extra hp would equal big gaps in the field. 138 may be difficult to get for some cars but it's far better than 140+ 145 147 etc!

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14386

Hey guys, good to hear from you!
Eric Kuhns

National Director Emeritus

2007, & 2008 National Champion
2011, 2012 2nd

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14387

It sounds like CJ will have more on this, but I have a couple of pics. As usual, Hank's stuff is a work of art. I also have a picture of a budget version. Both seem effective. Hank's is nicer, and ready to go, the budget version requires some fabrication at a muffler shop.



Eric Kuhns

National Director Emeritus

2007, & 2008 National Champion
2011, 2012 2nd
Last Edit: 11 years, 11 months ago by Sterling Doc. Reason: Fixed pic links

Re: Dyno Cap for 2013 944 Spec 11 years, 11 months ago #14388

  • john78
  • OFFLINE
  • Drivers Ed
  • Posts: 8
Sorry to be late to the party, but I learned of this topic, decision and controversy this morning. My perspective is skewed. I just got back an engine rebuild and haven't even started it yet. With totally unknown HP/TQ, I find it disappointing that I now must spend more money and more time to find out if I have a possible DQ motor.

I don't really have an issue with the rule, but the DQ sanction troubles me. I prefer an appropriate penalty of reward weight for one or more future events as a sanction. As a part of proper preparation, the front runners must go to the dyno before events to assure close to the threshold, but cannot risk going over. So more time and money on dynos for anyone with podium aspirations, or even point accumulation needs for qualifying for Nationals. Then there are undeniably dyno variations, which forecast for some pretty ugly arguments if the outcome changes a season. So the prudent prepared racer should dyno on the equipment used by the track that they risk the DQ measurement on. Still more time and still more money. If the sanction is weight, you get to live with it.

Racing is a money and time indulgence for me, and any rule that adds to both is not a good rule in my book. But with a less draconian sanction I think the (good) intent behind this rule can be achieved, without the harsh and potentially surprising consequences. I will be lucky to make enough events in 2013 to qualify for Nationals, which I would eagerly attend. Risking a DQ I feel is too draconian and may knock me out of Nationals. But with a weight (reward) I can still compete and take my lead lumps. And then at least I didn't have to take another day off work to go to a shop, dyno the car, and hope their dyno matches someone else's.

Thanks for listening.
Banner
Time to create page: 0.09 seconds